Matter of Seidler v. Ash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Seidler v. Ash

2017 NY Slip Op 2796, 149 A.D.3d 845, 49 N.Y.S.3d 915

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 2017

Docket2016-13200

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2796 (Matter of Seidler v. Ash) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Seidler v. Ash, 2017 NY Slip Op 2796, 149 A.D.3d 845, 49 N.Y.S.3d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Sylvia G. Ash, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine three motions in an action entitled Seidler v Knopf, pending in that court under Index No. 506453/14.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Sylvia G. Ash, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine three motions in an action entitled Seidler v Knopf, pending in that court under Index No. 506453/14.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2796, 149 A.D.3d 845, 49 N.Y.S.3d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-seidler-v-ash-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack